red or whitewhite bellows-redorwhite... · tustin, california bill@in2in.org associate technical...

RedRed or or WhiteWhiteWhite??Decisions for Selecting Wine Decisions for Selecting Wine

and Improving Qualityand Improving QualityPresented by

Bill BellowsPresented by

Bill BellowsPresident

In2:InThinking Network, Canoga Park, CA, Email:

July 27, 2007Orange Empire Quarterly Breakfast Meeting

Tustin, California

July 27, 2007Orange Empire Quarterly Breakfast Meeting

Tustin, California

bill@in2in.orgAssociate Technical Fellow & Lead

Enterprise Thinking Network, Pratt & Whitney RocketdyneCanoga Park, CA, Email: william.bellows@pwr.utc.com

PresidentIn2:InThinking Network, Canoga Park, CA, Email: bill@in2in.org

Associate Technical Fellow & LeadEnterprise Thinking Network, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

Canoga Park, CA, Email: william.bellows@pwr.utc.com

Abstract: Whether dining at home or in a fine restaurant, there are many decisions to make – from the appetizers to the meal selection and then dessert. And, decision to be made on drinks as well, from water (tap, bottled, sparkling, with or without lemon, lime, and ice) to soft drinks to beer and possibly wine. If wine fits the occasion, will it be a glass or a bottle, and red or white? Decisions, decisions, decisions. Efforts to improve quality also involve decisions, from which processes to improve, to how, how far, and by when? The aim of this presentation is to reflect on the traditional decisions made in quality improvement efforts and to link these decisions to the selection of a bottle of wine for dinner – red or white?

TakeawaysTakeaways1. The limitations of the popular focusing on customer

satisfaction and striving to reduce variation2. The opportunities for moving from the "Old

Economics" of the quality of parts to the "New Economics" of the quality of relationships

3. Why Genichi Taguchi's Quality Loss Function is a "better description of the world“

4. An invitation to learn more about efforts underway for 10 years at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to bring the ideas above in to daily practice

AimAimIntroduce the potential energy of

integrating the management theories and thinking of

Dr. W. Edwards Deming

Dr. Genichi Taguchi

Dr. Edward de Bono

and many others...

Dr. Russell Ackoff

●Quiz●Present State●Future State●Better Value●What’s Next?

AgendaAgenda

QuizQuiz

What is the leading use of alligator skin the United States today?

AlligatorsAlligators

Who makes the best automobile tires in the world today?

Automobile TiresAutomobile Tires

Q: Are you having a glass of wine?A: Yes

Q: Why don’t we buy a bottle?A: Sure

Q: Red or white?A:

WineWine

How much time is spent discussing parts which are good and arrive on time?

GoodGood

Q: Number of PassesQ: Number of Passes

Q: Sorting FruitQ: Sorting Fruit

Q: The Last StrawQ: The Last Straw

Q: PulseQ: Pulse

The Boeing Company The Boeing Company --Vision 2016Vision 2016● Core Competencies

– detailed customer knowledge

– large-scale systems integration

– lean enterprise

● Values– leadership– integrity– quality– customer satisfaction– people working together– a diverse and involved

team– good corporate

citizenship– enhancing shareholder

value

Expectation DynamicsExpectation DynamicsValue

Disappointment

Expectation

Delight

Satisfaction

Given a piece of wood that will be cut into 2 pieces....

how many lines will be drawn acrossthe top face before the cut is made ?

Q: Cutting WoodQ: Cutting Wood

target

Cutting WoodCutting Wood

target

Cutting WoodCutting Wood

0 A B C diameter

Q: Sorting CirclesQ: Sorting Circles

Which 2 of these 3 circles are closest to having the same diameter?

0 A B C diameter

Decisions DecisionsDecisions Decisions

MIN MAX

Which 2 of these 3 circles are closest to having the same diameter?

Background: Consider the following four processes and the specification limits and target provided.

USLLSL

TARGET

3

41

2

Q: Decisions DecisionsQ: Decisions Decisions

The Paradigms of VariationThe Paradigms of Variation

• Paradigm A • focus: meet specification limits (“any”)• expectations: meet

• Paradigm B• focus: piece-to-piece consistency (“4”)• expectations: ?

• Paradigm C• focus: piece-to-target consistency (“3”)• expectations: exceed

• Paradigms are mindsets• Paradigms are common. We have

them in all aspects of our life• Paradigms are useful. They focus

our attention

ParadigmsParadigms

Source: Future Edge, Joel Barker

UpperSpecification

Limit

Lower Specification

Limit

TARGET(desired value of

parameter)

“Loss toSociety”

TaguchiTaguchi’’s Quality Loss s Quality Loss FunctionFunction

“Quality is the loss a product causes to society after being shipped, other than losses caused by its intrinsic functions.”

Dr. Genichi Taguchi

Taguchi on Quality LossTaguchi on Quality Loss

Source: Introduction to Quality Engineering, Dr. Genichi Taguchi

Perception & ThinkingPerception & Thinking“How the world we perceive works depends on how we think.

The world we perceive is a world we bring forth through our thinking.”

H. Thomas JohnsonSource: Profit Beyond Measure, H. Thomas Johnson, 1999

Present StatePresent State

“Zero defects is another way of saying ‘do it right the first time’”Quality is defined as conformance to requirements

Source: Let’s Talk Quality, P. Crosby, 1989

Philip Crosby on QualityPhilip Crosby on Quality

1. Quality is defined as conformance to requirements, not as 'goodness' nor 'elegance'.

2. The system for causing quality is prevention, not appraisal.

3. The performance standard must be Zero Defects, not 'that's close enough'.

4. The measurement of quality is the Price of Non-conformance, not indices.

Crosby on the Absolutes of Crosby on the Absolutes of Quality ManagementQuality Management

Source: Quality is Free, Philip Crosby, 1979

0.22980.2299

0.23000.2301

0.23020.2303

0.23040.2305

0.23060.2307

0.23080.2309

0.23100.2311

0.23120.2313

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Hole Diameter, inches

Frequency

LOWER SPEC LIMIT 295 UPPER SPEC LIMIT

101

42

121

206

166

80

3112 10 1 5 7 2

DefectsDefects

In the late 1980’s, Motorola introduced The Six Sigma Quality management theory. The popularity of this theory spread world wide through the active pursuit of Six Sigma (and often higher) Quality levels. Consider the following statement from then Chief Executive Officer Jack Welch included in a 1997 letter to GE shareholders as evidence of this pursuit…“We didn’t invent Six Sigma — we learned it. Motorola pioneered it and AlliedSignal successfully embraced it. The experiences of these two companies, which they shared with us, made the launch of our initiative much simpler and faster.”

Six Sigma QualitySix Sigma Quality

From Motorola:On the definition of Six Sigma - "A defect rate of no more than 3.4 per million; statistically, allowing for some variationin mean, this approaches zero defects.....At Motorola, we actually have a measure for quality which we call "Six Sigma" , and this literally affects everybody and everything we do, every minute, of everyday. Six Sigma is basically a target based on zero defects per million manufactured parts. At present we are hitting 99.9996%, which is so close to perfection that we are now using a parts-per-billion measure for defects.”

Six Sigma Quality Six Sigma Quality –– Part 2Part 2

From Honeywell:On the implementation of Six Sigma Quality: “Six Sigma is a breakthrough change strategy for accelerating improvements in processes, products and services. It is a statistical term, first used in the electronics and computer industries, to describe an almost-perfect process. A company reaches the Six Sigma level of perfection when its processes are 99.99966 percent error-free, and defects measure a mere 3.4 per million.”

Six Sigma Quality Six Sigma Quality –– Part 3Part 3

Present StatePresent State

*without a thinking transformation

● Driving Change● Reliance on Reforming● Reducing Variation, Cost, Waste, Inventory,

etc● Talk about “Working Together”● Striving for “Zero Defects” and “Zero Waste”● Continuous Improvement● Using Metrics for Alignment*

Future StateFuture State

AssumptionsAssumptions● A better way to operate an organization is

to invest resources with the ability to manage customer delight, satisfaction, and disappointment

● Better investment results from discovering opportunities to invest

● The discovery of opportunities for investment is limited by how thinking is conditioned

What is needed ?What is needed ?

Thinking that promotes

betterdiscovery

InThinkingInThinkingInThinking is about a transformation of the ways people think into effective predetermined patterns and sequences of thinking. The organization of thinking itself and the awareness that there is a choice of alternative ways of thinking when creating better solutions, presents a significant and exciting departure from traditional approaches.

InThinking & Enterprise InThinking & Enterprise ThinkingThinking

Increase individual awareness on thinking (InThinking)

Evolve the way we behave

Evolve the way we run our organizations

Evolve the way we think together

(Enterprise Thinking)

RaftingRafting

The In2:InThinking Network was formed in 2001 by a group of students of the work of W. Edwards Deming and related theorists. The aim of our network is to make thinking about systems, variation, knowledge, and psychology, and their interaction – which comprises Deming's System of Profound Knowledge tm - more conscious. We believe that such thinking about thinking, which we call "inthinking," will allow people to better perceive relationships and interdependencies in human endeavors, and consequently act to make those endeavors more valuable, more satisfying, and more joyful.

In2:InThinking NetworkIn2:InThinking Network

The In2:InThinking NetworkThe In2:InThinking Network2002 - Creating New ROIs - Transforming the

Economics of the 21st Century

2003 - What's New? What's Next? –Better Thinking for a Better Future

2004 - Making a Difference From Where You Are –Better Thinking For a Better Future

The In2:InThinking NetworkThe In2:InThinking Network2005 - Daring to Lead - Influencing Better Thinking

for a Better Future

2006 - Daring to Explore –Creating Possibilities Together

2007 - Passion Flowing In2 Purposeful Action –Unleashing the Power of Us

2004 In2:IN Forum: 2004 In2:IN Forum: ““Making a Difference From Making a Difference From Where We AreWhere We Are””

In2:InThinking Network - www.in2in.org

In2:InThinking Network - www.in2in.org

2005 In2:IN Forum: 2005 In2:IN Forum: ““Daring to LeadDaring to Lead””

Future StateFuture State● Leading Transformation● Use of Reformation and Transformation● Resource & Relationship Management

(Striving for Balance)● Thinking & Learning Together - Then

Working Together● Continuous Investment ● Using Thinking for Alignment

● InThinking and Enterprise Thinking

WhatWhat’’s Next?s Next?● Thinking Together● Rethinking “Working Together”● Rethinking “Learning Together”● Rethinking “Management”● Rethinking “Leadership”● Rethinking “Interchangeable parts”● Rethinking ???

Imagine the Possibilities...Imagine the Possibilities...

● when operating in an “Enterprise Thinking”environment

● if we could develop a broader appreciation of “continuous and connected learning”

● if we could develop a deeper appreciation of “working together”, “learning together” and“thinking together”

Imagine the Possibilities...Imagine the Possibilities...● and the markets we could create

Working TogetherInvesting Together

Designing TogetherBuilding Together

Learning TogetherThinking Together

Leading Together

TakeawaysTakeaways1. The limitations of the popular focusing on customer

satisfaction and striving to reduce variation2. The opportunities for moving from the "Old

Economics" of the quality of parts to the "New Economics" of the quality of relationships

3. Why Genichi Taguchi's Quality Loss Function is a "better description of the world“

4. An invitation to learn more about efforts underway for 10 years at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to bring the ideas above in to daily practice